In the Pilbara region of Western Australia, mining companies and Traditional Owners hold different views on how final mine landforms should be designed. Mining engineers often develop closure designs that are efficient to model, construct, and execute within existing mine planning schedules and systems. These designs favour simple, planar slopes and trapezoidal profiles that are readily optimised using current mining software and equipment. The focus is on material movement, geotechnical stability, and cost-effectiveness. The primary design is the repose profile, and the final landform is derived from this structure. The result is a technically sound but visually artificial landform. In contrast, Traditional Owners are requesting geomorphic landforms that reflect the natural country. Their vision includes convex and concave slope profiles, natural flow paths within catchments, and varied topography that reconnects surface water flow and supports ecological and cultural renewal. These landforms draw on the surrounding hills and valleys, aiming to restore the land’s natural appearance and function. The challenge for industry is to bridge these perspectives—merging technical stability with cultural authenticity to deliver landforms and landscapes that endure both physically and culturally. This raises an important question: who is truly designing the post-mining landscape? Engineers often treat the pit, the dump, and the haul road as separate design elements, whereas Traditional Owners see the entire Country as a connected system of land, water, and meaning. To move forward, mining engineers must look beyond the engineered footprint of the landform on the mining lease and design within the broader landscape.